Gaelic Broadcasting
Item 2 on the agenda is the final evidence-taking session of our inquiry into Gaelic broadcasting. I welcome to the meeting Alasdair Morrison, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic. Thank you for coming, minister. I believe that you want to make some opening comments and I ask you to do that now.
Thank you. I was hoping at this stage to introduce one of my officials, Francis Brewis. I saw him at one o' clock, but I do not know whether he has managed to negotiate the distance between parliamentary headquarters and this building. However, I have no doubt that he will join us later.
I am grateful to the committee and to you, convener, for allowing me to come at this late stage of your proceedings. I understand that I was scheduled to come on a previous date, which unfortunately clashed with a prior engagement. I thank the committee for its forbearance.
Francis Brewis is now on my right. Francis is an official from our sports, arts and culture division, who deals with the Gaelic portfolio.
The United Kingdom Government and the Executive are examining the proposition that there should be development of digital technology and a new regulatory system to provide an opportunity for the Gaelic community to harness the power of modern communications to support linguistic, cultural and economic development aims. Members might have heard it said in previous evidence that there are expectations on minority-language broadcasting that are not placed on majority-language broadcasting. For example, minority-language broadcasting is asked to support linguistic development and to play a cultural role. The imperative to succeed and the capacity for failing are greater in minority-language broadcasting. That places additional burdens on those who are responsible for it, including legislators.
In recent years there has been a shift in emphasis in broadcasting legislation from defending cultural values to meeting economic development objectives. That has stemmed from the broadcasting industry being increasingly recognised as a significant economic force in the creative industry and the broadcast spectrum, as well as being a valuable economic and cultural asset. That is one of the reasons why the forthcoming communications bill is so important. Government must ensure the continuation of protection for public service broadcasting values such as quality, universal access, affordability, innovation and range of programming, while legislating for a regulatory framework that will enable the UK creative and communication industries to compete in the global marketplace.
If Gaelic broadcasting is to be sustained in the competitive digital environment of the 21st century, it must be placed within the framework of regulation and it must be established under UK legislation. It must be normalised, not marginalised. The Gaelic creative community should be encouraged and enabled to engage with the cultural industries to allow it to exploit the opportunity that broadcasting can provide for economic as well as cultural and linguistic development. On the basis of the evidence given to the Milne task force and the public evidence given to the committee, current arrangements for Gaelic broadcasting—whatever their merits or demerits in the analogue environment—do not adequately equip the Gaelic community to meet those challenges.
Despite the drawbacks inherent in the limitation of the powers of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee—Comataidh Craolaidh Gàidhlig, or CCG—and its dependence on ITV schedules, the CCG's experience has shown that much can be achieved by an organisation that is dedicated to Gaelic broadcasting development. That is evident in CCG strategies for funding, research, training, development and production, and in its activities in supporting and complementing the work of Gaelic language education and arts development organisations.
It is important that a minority-language broadcaster in the digital age, while being first and foremost a broadcaster, is equipped to deal with the dual set of expectations—linguistic and cultural—that are held by the community, and with the responsibility for delivering value for money. That points to the need, in the Gaelic context, for the establishment of an organisation that is empowered to operate independently in the digital broadcasting environment while co-operating with Gaelic development organisations to meet common aims.
The Gaelic broadcasting organisation in the future must not be beholden to competing channel broadcasters, but must be free to compete for audiences. That is a powerful incentive for ensuring relevance and quality of output. It should also be free to add value to its core public funding by seeking sponsorship and advertising revenue, by maximising programme sales and by negotiating co-production arrangements.
It is possible to envisage a Gaelic broadcasting organisation that is established under UK legislation and which works within the broadcasting industry and with the Gaelic community and the Gaelic organisations—supported by the Scottish Executive—to meet the dual set of expectations inherent in minority languages. That is why it is so important for the Scottish Executive to continue to work with the Scotland Office to determine the appropriate structure for Gaelic broadcasting in future. The solution they deliver should recognise Gaelic broadcasting as a UK and Scottish issue and should be designed to support linguistic development initiatives as well as meeting public service broadcasting objectives.
I am grateful to the minister for his paper and introduction, which are helpful. In the spirit of being helpful, and as this is a Scottish issue and you are the minister who has responsibility for Gaelic, I will not debate the role—apart from the legislative one—that the UK should have in this matter. I will leave all that aside. I want to ask a couple of specific questions about things that you have said or that have arisen in our inquiry.
I think that you are familiar with the Official Reports of the committee's inquiry. You mentioned a Gaelic broadcasting organisation as something for the future, but the question of the structure that that organisation will fit into is difficult, given the move away from a diverse series of regulatory bodies. How do you see a Gaelic broadcasting organisation fitting into to the much looser structure of regulation that appears to be developing?
I hope that every Gael and every person around this table is supportive of the principle of establishing a Gaelic organisation that is responsible for broadcasting. We must appreciate what has been achieved over the past 10 years. There were weaknesses in the way in which Gaelic broadcasting was established, which is recognised not only by those who work with and oversee the moneys, but by those involved in broadcasting and many viewers. As I explained in my paper and my introductory remarks, we are working closely with UK colleagues. I know that Mr Russell does not want to be difficult, which is a great departure from his usual ways of engaging.
I hope that you welcome the novelty.
Absolutely. We have work to do and there is a clear timetable for UK legislation. We will work with the Secretary of State for Scotland and ensure that officials from the Scottish Executive, the Scotland Office, HM Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are working to the UK timetable. The Executive and the committee have a role in that process. The committee's views will be noted and used by the individuals, the officials and the ministers that are involved. I hope to meet before the Christmas recess with Dr Kim Howells, the minister who is charged with taking the Office of Communications Bill through Westminster. I understand that, by that stage, I will be armed with the committee's report, as the committee will be reporting before the October recess.
The report will be published after the October recess, I hope about the end of October.
That will be useful—it will help to inform what the Executive does and it will be fed into the UK network.
To take that a stage further, we should think about what structures will emerge. There will be a British Broadcasting Corporation that is governed by some form of charter and which will be a wider organisation than the one that we have at present. There will be a range of broadcasters in the independent sector, whose regulation will perhaps be lighter and more different, but there will be a range of regulation.
One of the problems that you alluded to in your opening statement is the difficulty that the CCG has—and its predecessor the Comataidh Telebhisein Gàidhlig had—in operating across that divide. It is a body that does not commission programmes, yet pays for programmes. It does not schedule programmes, yet there is an expectation that programmes will achieve the maximum possible audience.
The minister might not be able to answer the question of where a new Gaelic broadcasting organisation will fit, but he might be prepared to accept that that question will be crucial in discussions on that organisation. The matter is not technical—it is a matter of whether the organisation can get programmes on screen. Therefore the way in which the organisation is regulated is important.
We are retracing our steps in relation to the weaknesses of the current arrangements. The CCG administers moneys, but it cannot schedule or determine what happens in broadcasting. Mr Russell's question is fundamental and it must be addressed during the process. I do not want to commit myself in a public forum. I am happy to share with members my private views on what should happen, but given that the meeting is in public, we should tread carefully and sensibly during this important process.
I accept that and I look forward to hearing the minister's private views on the matter, which I am sure will be influential. I will choose a subject that it is easier for you to talk about.
Clear evidence has been presented to the committee that the Gaelic broadcasting fund, although affected by the lack of increase in resources, has had an important role in sustaining Gaelic in the past 10 years. The fund is one of the key platforms of the policy to sustain Gaelic. However, the minister is well aware that the number of Gaelic speakers continues to fall and that the census figures are not awaited with excitement or anticipation. What wider role can Gaelic broadcasting have at this time, given that the problem of declining numbers exists and is getting worse? What sectors should Gaelic broadcasting be playing to? Should it be spending more money on education? What are its key priorities for the next 10 years, given that the Executive has established a task force and a working group that are examining seriously the problems and possibilities of Gaelic?
In an ideal world, Gaelic broadcasting would be working across the same sectors that one would expect any broadcasting facility to work across. On my way to the meeting, I received a copy of Dr Finlay MacLeod's written submission to the committee. I do not want to add to or detract from what Dr MacLeod said to the committee. The second paragraph of that submission states:
"No modern culture and its associated language can function adequately without the normal fabric of communications and media, so that such a culture is in touch with itself and with the wider world. Gaelic Scotland requires no more and no less. A Gaelic television service is a necessary element in Gaelic society."
Dr MacLeod summed up ably and succinctly what we should be about—normalising as opposed to marginalising provision for Gaelic. What has been achieved during the past 10 years has been remarkable, in both education and the way in which the CCG has managed to link with other important organisations in Gaeldom. I hope that we will build on what has been achieved and widen its scope.
My question was about priorities. Socialism might no longer be the language of priority and you might reject both definitions, but I asked about priorities, in terms of the limited amount of money that is available. What should be prioritised in your overall strategy to help you to deliver your objectives as minister with responsibility for Gaelic, and to help Scotland to deliver the objectives of sustaining and building the language?
As Michael Russell knows, one of the Executive's priorities with Gaelic is education. Since 1996 we have made considerable strides and have continued to build on the success of Gaelic education. There is no point in educating children in Gaelic if Gaelic is not relevant. Television helps to make Gaelic relevant. That is an area in which there are obvious benefits in Gaelic broadcasting that complement what we are doing in Gaelic education. Children in the Gaelic education system are able to relate to and view television, like any other child in Scotland.
Personal anecdotes are sometimes useful. I am experiencing those benefits through my daughter, who is two and a half. She rightly expects to see, and is thoroughly engrossed and engaged in, Gaelic cartoons. One day she will realise that she has been duped because she is watching continual repeats of the same cartoons. I hope that by that time we will be working on improving the situation.
It is important for me as a parent, and I am sure that the same is true for many other people, that there is normal provision for their children because children expect and appreciate cartoons. Some Gaelic cartoons are more challenging than some daytime television.
My student daughter also watches Gaelic cartoons, although she is much older than your daughter.
I am interested in the promotion of Gaelic. You say rightly that education plays a great role in that. Arts and culture are likewise important in encouraging people to hold on to their language or to learn a language, yet I hear from those who know that Gaelic broadcasting contains fewer cultural and arts programmes at the moment. Why? What should happen to ensure that listeners, stakeholders and people who want to promote the language have a say in what is broadcast?
Cathy Peattie might be aware that the BBC is filming a series on the island of Harris, which is to be broadcast in February 2002. The cost of such productions must be appreciated. I am not aware of the criticism that there is a lack of arts production. People make a similar criticism that there is inadequate coverage of sports such as shinty, which is indigenous and one of Scotland's oldest games. I hear regularly from people who say rightly that sports provision is inadequate.
I am not here to defend provision. I put up my hand immediately and say, "Of course there isn't enough." The broadcasters and the CCG must work within the constraints of their budgeting formula. I have been told that broadcasting one Premiership football match costs about £6.5 million. That puts the Gaelic television budget in context.
Do you agree that it is important that broadcasters listen to comments and that some way of gathering information is found, to ensure that they reach their target audience?
That is an essential part of any broadcaster's responsibilities. I have no doubt that broadcasters will respond to constructive criticism and suggestions from the community that they serve.
The inquiry has been many committee members' first delve into the world of Gaelic broadcasting. Many members began with a small knowledge base. A couple of issues struck other committee members and me when we visited Stornoway. The first was the strength of feeling among local people that a dedicated Gaelic channel was needed. That matter is under debate. I would be interested to hear your views on whether a Scottish channel that Gaelic broadcasters could buy into should be established, or whether a dedicated Gaelic channel should be established. Arguments for both options were made vociferously, for different reasons.
The other issue that the committee heard about concerned the location of the headquarters of such a Gaelic organisation. Strong arguments were made on both sides of the debate about whether it was necessary to have the headquarters in the Gaelic heartlands, regardless of whether that is in the Western Isles, on Skye or in central Scotland—some argued that more Gaelic speakers lived there. The minister has a constituency interest, so I do not ask him to declare which part of the Gaelic heartlands he would like the headquarters to be located in, but a debate is being conducted about the location, which is a symbolic issue.
I thank the convener for helpfully raising those issues. The convener is right—as the minister who is responsible for Gaelic, I must take an all-Scotland view, while recognising the legitimate aspirations of my constituents. I have discussed informally with members the fact that the obvious place to locate every Gaelic organisation is my own native island of North Uist, where 94 per cent of the population speaks Gaelic, but I do not imagine that other islands and other parts of the Gaidhealtachd of Scotland would appreciate the merits of that argument. I say that in jest.
I support the establishment of a dedicated Gaelic channel. I hope that all members are signed up to seeking such a channel. I appreciate the merits of a Scottish channel and of people developing relationships with other cultural communities in Scotland, but my concern is that Gaelic would be shunted to the margins again, instead of determining its own priorities and the Gaelic community determining when broadcasts are made and what the feeding or sustaining services are. We should have a dedicated channel that is run by those who know, who appreciate the concerns that Cathy Peattie mentioned, while serving the arts community and those who want shinty coverage, for example. A dedicated channel must be established. That is the only way forward.
The channel should be firmly located in the Gaidhealtachd. The Gaidhealtachd is the heartland. For historic reasons, the Western Isles are recognised as the last heartlands, although other communities, such as Tiree and Islay, rightly claim their place in the Gaidhealtachd. I recognise the argument about the central belt. I assume that some broadcasters—because of their interests—would not wish their control over infrastructure and other matters to be loosened. Those arguments are important, but the channel should be firmly located in the Gaidhealtachd.
It is obvious that a dedicated channel is some time away, because it will not be created until—and if—the relevant legislation is passed. Another big criticism about Gaelic broadcasting is that the programmes are scheduled at inaccessible times or not given proper priority. Much of that concerns reserved matters, but what role can we have in influencing scheduling or promoting the fact that Gaelic programmes should be given slots at which people can watch them, rather than their being scheduled at 1 am, when people cannot watch them as freely as we can watch mainstream broadcasting?
The answer comes down to the argument about normalisation. Over the years, the way in which some broadcasters have happily taken the pound and the pence and have broadcast programmes at ludicrous times has been nothing short of disgraceful. We are looking for normalisation, not marginalisation. I will not begin to cite the many examples of programmes with good production values that have been broadcast in the middle of the night. That is an appalling betrayal by some broadcasters. As I said, they happily sign up and access the moneys that are available to make programmes, but they drop those programmes in a 3 am slot.
You said that the role of minority broadcasting was more than merely cultural, that it does more than preserve the language and that it had to have an economic element. I have a question about the jobs that have been created and the new skills that have been acquired in the past 10 years. Are you satisfied that the training course at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and other initiatives to encourage writers, directors, producers, technicians, actors and presenters have been as successful as you would like? If they have been successful, how do you envisage continuing such initiatives?
One pillar of the argument of those who railed against making any provision for Gaels and Gaelic broadcasting was that we would not be able to produce enough broadcasters, producers, journalists and trained technicians to work in the industry. That argument has been well and truly obliterated.
Irene McGugan mentioned training courses, which have been successful. They moved in the right direction, but did they fill the gaps? They moved at a reasonable pace. We hope to build on the successes of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig's training. I cannot remember offhand the details of the jobs that have been created, but from cursory glances through the evidence that the committee took, I assume that the committee has a detailed explanation about those jobs.
Such jobs are important to the wider economy of the Gaidhealtachd and to the island communities. Historically, people have left the islands to go through the university system and to graduate. Gaelic television and broadcasting have afforded those people the opportunity to return to the Gaidhealtachd. We want to encourage and build on that. Are we satisfied? I concede that we are not. We want more to be done and more development. We are all signed up to that.
Most of the points that I wanted to make have been covered. You said that good programmes with high production values had been shunted from mainstream times by unsympathetic schedulers.
There were difficulties in producing up to 200 hours a year of programmes—that is what the figure was, although it is now falling. If a Gaelic broadcasting organisation tried to cover a much wider spectrum, would that threaten production values? Such an organisation might try to do more with not enough. To what output should the Gaelic broadcasting organisation aspire? Are you talking about an output of one day, two days or so many evenings a week? How would a Gaelic broadcasting organisation cover the territory?
I hope that such an organisation would be able to cover the territory in much the same way that, for example, the BBC Gaelic radio service has covered the territory and carried out remarkable work over many years. I would hope for a normal service that begins at 7.30 am, continues to midday and then continues at 5 pm with youth programming thereafter—people seek that normality.
Obviously, the Milne report's aspiration to produce three hours a day every day involves a significant BBC element. We seek normality and normalisation. Radio nan Gaidheal's daily work involves a spectrum of work and high production values. We would like that radio model to be replicated on television.
Nationally, the BBC uses many American programmes and there is much repetition. I wonder about the feasibility of full-scale broadcasting using small resources.
Mr Jenkins raises an important issue. The aspiration is not to have a 6 am until 6 am schedule—that would simply not be feasible. People will want to move to the BBC radio model, where there is an air of normality about the provision of broadcasting. Arts, sport and current affairs are covered and not just in a Scottish context. There would be the same news provision that one would expect from Radio 4, Radio 5 or Radio Scotland.
I think that there is broad agreement that we are in transition from one model to another. When will we have the new model? When will a digital broadcasting service in Gaelic be established?
A communications bill is expected in the 2002-03 session at Westminster. As I outlined in response to an earlier question, DCMS officials are working on that. The Scottish Executive is hooking in with and working towards that timetable. I will have a meeting before the Christmas recess with Kim Howells to discuss the timetable and its important milestones.
You spoke about a comparatively normal service with a range of different programmes. With the best will in the world, the infrastructure to produce four, five or six hours of programming a day does not exist, at least not yet. Assuming that resources are made available, what run-up would be required between legislation being passed and a channel coming on air? What is your best guess?
Ideally, a channel would come on air the day after the legislation was passed, but that aspiration is not realistic. I have worked in broadcasting, but I am not an expert on production. I cannot give a straightforward or meaningful answer on the timetable, but a channel would come on air as quickly as people could provide one.
I am intrigued by what the minister said about cartoons. My television experience might be enhanced if cartoons such as "The Simpsons" and Daffy Duck were put on more frequently.
The minister mentioned an appalling betrayal by broadcasters and the main broadcasting companies. What can we do about that? What signals can we send that would address concerns about the role that they play, particularly in scheduling and in the quality of and support that they give to programmes?
The committee has copies of the recent edition of the "Regional Film & Video". The headline is "Gaelic Broadcasting in Crisis". I am not convinced that that is confirmed in the report, but Matt McIver indicates that the resource base—particularly between 1999 and 2001—has meant a reduction of broadcasting hours. Will that change? If the minister cannot enlighten the committee on that today, it would be helpful if he could at another time.
The key recommendation in the Milne report concerns a dedicated channel—we have tried to tease out a time scale for that. Would the minister comment on those points?
I reaffirm my commitment to a dedicated channel as outlined in the Milne report. On cartoons, I recommend "Sam Smàlaidh" and "Pàdraig Post" to Mr McAveety. His life experience will be greatly enhanced if he sits down and watches them for hours on end.
I recognise what the BBC is doing. It broadcasts at sensible hours—in post-teatime slots—but that cannot be said about SMG, which I think has a commitment of 30 minutes per week. That does not come within a million miles of the normality that we seek.
I would be greatly indebted to the committee if, on behalf of the wider Gaelic community—and indeed, on behalf of the many thousands outwith the Gaelic community who have accessed Gaelic programmes over the years—it could send a strong signal to broadcasters about their moral obligation to the communities that they are meant to serve. We are not talking about Gaelic in isolation and the 60,000 to 70,000 people who still use the language daily and for whom Gaelic is their first language. The learners out there are another important constituency. Tens of thousands of Scots have accessed Gaelic current affairs programmes and drama series.
I thank the minister for giving evidence. We aim to publish the report by the end of October and we will ensure that he has a copy.
It is more likely to be published in the first week in November.
It may be published in the first week in November—anyhow, the minister will have a copy before he goes south for his discussions.
We have all been struck by the Gaelic community's strength of feeling and its desire for a dedicated Gaelic channel—that will bear heavily on the committee's deliberations.
I thank the convener for the opportunity to attend the meeting. I would be grateful for a copy of the report. As I said, I hope that I will have a meeting with the UK minister before the Christmas recess and the report would be useful.
Meeting adjourned at 14:07.
On resuming—